PDA

View Full Version : Cable defensive in battle with DSS Pirates??


ronrob
September 20th, 2002, 10:26 AM
Canadian Press

Thursday, September 19, 2002

TORONTO (CP) - Federal authorities should enforce the Supreme Court ruling that declared grey and black market home satellite TV illegal because cable and dish providers "can't compete with free," says Janet Yale, president of the Canadian Cable Television Association.

Yale is also chair of the Canadian Television Fund, which provides subsidies for Canadian programming content and which is dependent on a percentage of domestic carrier subscriber fees.

At a luncheon of broadcast executives Thursday, Yale said the high court had been "pretty categorical on the law" concerning theft of encrypted signals and it's been frustrating not to see the RCMP act.

She said if the government really believes in the law of the land then it should stand by it.

"Because if it doesn't want to uphold its policy then it should get out of our way," Yale said.

Asked if this means Canadian carriers should be allowed to directly carry such envied U.S. premium services as HBO and Showtime, Yale said it was premature to speculate.

"We're not ready to go there yet."

Yale estimated there are some 700,000 illegal satellite dishes in Canada, representing about five per cent of the market and hundreds of millions of dollars lost to the Canadian broadcasting system and the economy as a whole. She said the fund itself - already seriously oversubscribed - loses between $4 million and 7.5 million annually.

Yale said there are probably many reasons why the government is reluctant to act: national security is a greater priority, threats of complex Charter arguments, the lack of clarity at the CRTC about its role and politicians reluctant to go against public opinion.

"But these reasons ignore some basic issues: it's not about choice, it's about theft, it's illegal, and it's undermining a market structure we are expected to support and contribute to."

Meanwhile, she said, with no apparent plans for an RCMP blitz on black-market dealers, the industry itself is preparing for litigation as well as public service announcements to air this fall.

Earlier this week, Bell ExpressVu, the home satellite service division of BCE, Inc., said it's proceeding with plans for a broad lawsuit against companies that continue to sell equipment that pulls in unlicensed American satellite signals like DireCTV.

Last April, the high court ruled that it was illegal to sell decoding equipment that permits such access in Canada, although some of the equipment providers have been trying to fight the ruling by seeking injunctions against enforcement.

While the Canadian industry argues in favour of protection of intellectual property, advocates of a so-called open skies policy raise comparisons to the Cold War when the Russians jammed the signal of Radio Free Europe from behind the Iron Curtain.

"Basically, you're looking at a fascist country that's pretending to be a democracy," said Jan Pachul, who operates Star Ray TV, an unlicensed UHF channel in the city's east end.

© Copyright 2002 The Canadian Press

Jeet
September 20th, 2002, 02:59 PM
"But these reasons ignore some basic issues: it's not about choice, it's about theft, it's illegal, and it's undermining a market structure we are expected to support and contribute to."

What crack is this person on? The interpretation of the Supreme Court that she is referring to and wants enforced has nothing to do with theft. You can not decode any signal unless its provider has been authorized by the CRTC to distribute that signal.

Directv, Dish Network, XM Satellite Radio and Sirius Satellite Radio are all encrypted signals and have not received authorization from the CRTC. So therefore anybody who is subscribing to these services is in breach of Section 9.1(c) of the Radio Communication Act. And yes Section 9.1(c) applies to XM and Sirius even though they are a radio signal and a not a video signal. Why does it apply to XM and Sirius? Because both these are an encrypted signal. Section 9.1(c) does not make any distinction between video or radio signals, it just refers to encrypted signals.

How can a person be in breach of Section 9.1(c), if they are subscribing to the service? That is because there are two acts going on here. The first is paying for the service. The second is decoding the signal. Both are two sepearate acts. Now because you are paying for it you are not stealing it, so therefore you can not be accused of theft. However it is the second act that you are committing that is in violation of Section 9.1(c) - namely decoding the signal.

Now I just want to go back to the first act - that is paying for the service. A person is not in violation of Section 313 of the Criminal Code if he is paying a lawful charge. But DirecTV, Dish Network, XM Satellite Radio and Sirius are not authorized services in Canada so therefore any subscription that a person is paying is not a lawful charge. So therefore YOU ARE in violation of Section 313, stealing a service even though you are paying for it. I know this sounds far fetched but a Canadian judge in a Directv case said the exact same thing when she was being asked to rule on Section 313. She said that if you make Section 313 only applies to those services that are authorized in Canada. If you make it apply to unauthorized services then a person who is subscribing to the service could possibly be charged with theft because he is not paying a "lawful charge" for the service as defined under the Criminal Code.